Dissertations
< Library
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| − | <div id="libraryDissertations" class="row"> | + | <div id="libraryDissertations" class="row mr-0"> |
{{PageTileQuery|query=[[BuNayPageType::Dissertation]]|classes=col-md-6}} | {{PageTileQuery|query=[[BuNayPageType::Dissertation]]|classes=col-md-6}} | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 17:53, 24 February 2020
Dissertations
This thesis, a comparison of the concepts of buddha-nature and dao-nature in the medieval period (from the 5th to the 10th centuries) of China, presents a historical investigation of the formation of the idea that insentient things are able to possess buddha-nature in medieval Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism. In Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism, the concept of buddha-nature was originally defined as a potential possessed by sentient beings that enabled them to achieve buddhahood. From the 6th century, the concept was reinterpreted within the Chinese Buddhist tradition so that insentient things were also able to possess buddha-nature. Recent scholarship has pointed out that the idea of insentient things having buddha-nature is a combination of Buddhist and Daoist ideas based on the concept of the all-pervading Dao found in the Zhuangzi 莊子. In this sense, buddha-nature seems to be interpreted as equivalent with the Dao of Daoism. My project suggests that the reinterpretation of buddha-nature in association with the insentient realm should be elucidated in a more nuanced way than the idea of all-pervasiveness of the Dao. A historical, doctrinal investigation of the intellectual formation of the concept of buddha-nature in Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism demonstrates a new interpretation of buddha-nature in the context of insentient things having buddha-nature. Further, through a historical investigation of intellectual exchange between Buddhism and Daoism, some evidence provided in this project illustrates that the idea of insentient things having dao-nature in Daoism was not inherited from Buddhism, but drawn from Daoist tradition. This new perspective is different from that of some contemporary scholars who have claimed that the idea of insentient things having dao-nature was borrowed from Chinese Buddhism. A chronological investigation of the discussion of nature in Chinese thought demonstrates that the idea of insentient things having buddha-nature incorporates earlier Daoist traditions found in Arcane Study.
Because of the number of citations and references which are retained in Sanskrit Buddhist texts, the Śrīmālādevī sūtra seems to have been widely circulated throughout India. This text is
quoted in the Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra (The Supreme Exposition of Mahāyāna: A Commentary on the Jewel Lineage)[1] and the Śikṣāsamuccaya (A Compendium on Instruction)[2] with allusions made in the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra[3] and the Mahāyāna sūtrālaṁkāra (The Ornament of the Mahāyāna sūtras).[4] The Ch'eng wei-shih lun (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi) by Hsüan-tsang also quotes from the Śrīmālādevī sūtra but does not identify the sūtra by name.[5]
According to the Sung kao seng chuan[6] Bodhiruci used a Sanskrit text of the Śrīmālādevī sūtra for reference in translating the text into Chinese. From the above evidence, it may be concluded that a Sanskrit original of the Śrīmālādevī sūtra did exist and that this text was part of the Indian Buddhist tradition.
The classical Chinese text is extant in two recensions:
1) Sheng-man shih-tzu-hou i-ch'eng ta-fang-pien fang-kuang ching (1 ch.) (T.v.12, no. 353, pp. 217-223), translated by Guṇabhadra (394-468) in 435.
2) Sheng-man-fu-jen hui which is the forty-eighth assembly in the Ratnakūṭa anthology (Ta-pao chi ching) (T.v.11, no. 310, pp. 672-678), translated by Bodhiruci[7] (572-727) of T'ang between 706 and 713.
Because Guṇabhadra's translation is almost three hundred years older than Bodhiruci's, it has been chosen as the basic text in order to trace the development of Tathāgatagarbha thought in its original form. Bodhiruci's translation is used when Guṇabhadra's translation is ambiguous and when differences in interpretation are indicated.
The Tibetan recension, Hphags-pa lha-mo dpal-phreṅ gi seṅ-geḥi sgra shes-bya-ba theg-pa chen-poḥi mdo (Tōhoku no. 92, Bkaḥ-ḥgyur), which is part of the Ratnakūṭa anthology, will not be used. When significant differences between the Chinese and Tibetan recensions occur, the Tibetan text will be noted also.[8]
The commentaries which are extant are few and only in Chinese and Japanese. There are no Tibetan commentaries now extant, which discuss only the Śrīmālādevī sūtra.[9] According to the Kao seng chuan,[10] immediately after the translation of the Śrīmālādevī sūtra many commentaries were composed by monks who had studied and memorized the Śrīmālādevī sūtra. These texts, now lost, were dated between the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. According to Chi-tsang's Sheng-man ching pao-k'u, monks studied and composed commentaries on the Śrīmālādevī sūtra from the North-South dynastic periods through the Sui (i.e. from approximately 440-618 A.D.).
The major commentaries[11] extant in Chinese are:
1) Hsieh-chu sheng-man ching (T.v.85, no. 2763) - Although the commentator is unknown, this text was probably the composition of a noble woman of Northern Wei, attested to by the calligraphy and literary style of the Tun-huang manuscript. Completed before 500 A.D., it is the oldest extant commentary on the Śrīmālādevī sūtra.[12] Only Chapter 5, "Ekayāna" is discussed.
2) Sheng-man ching i-chi (2 ch.) (Dainihon zokuzōkyō, v.1, no. 30-1) by Hui-yüan, (523-692) of Sui - Only the first half of the text is extant, corresponding to the first four chapters of the Śrīmālādevī sūtra.
3) Sheng-man ching pao-k'u, (3 ch.) (T.v.37, no. 1744) by Chi-tsang (549-623) of Sui.
4) Sheng-man ching shu-chi, (2 ch.) (Dainihon zokuzōkyō v.1, no. 30-4) by K'uei-chi (632-682) of T'ang.
5) Sheng-man ching su-i ssu-ch'ao, (6 ch.) (Dainihon bukkyō zensho, v.4) by Ming-k'ung[13] of T'ang in 772.
The major commentaries extant in Japanese are:
1) Shōmagyō gisho (1 ch.) (T.v.56, no. 2184) attributed to Prince Shōtoku (573-621) but probably the composition of a North Chinese Buddhist scholar.[14]
2) Shōmangyō shosho genki, (18 ch.) (Dainihon bukkyō zensho, v.4) by Gyōnen (1240-1321). First five chüan are missing. The extant text begins with the chapter "The Ten Ordination Vows".
3) Shōman-shishikugyō kenshūshō (3 ch.) (Nihon daizōkyō, v. 5; Dainihon bukkyō zensho, v.4) by Fūjaku (1707-1781)
The Sheng-man ching pao k'u and the Shōmangyō gisho are the two primary commentaries upon which the present study's interpretation of the Śrīmālādevī sūtra is based. These two commentaries have been selected because the former, written by a San-lun master, interprets Tathāgatagarbha from a Mādhyamikan perspective whereas the latter is representative of the North Chinese scholars' interpretation and frequently overshadows the sūtra itself in popularity, particularly in Japan. The Sheng-man ching i-chi and the Hsieh-chu sheng-man ching are used as references in analyzing Chapters 4 and 5, "The Acceptance of the true Dharma" and the "One Vehicle" respectively of the Śrīmālādevī sūtra.
In Chapter One, a historical analysis will be attempted, suggesting the place and time of composition on the basis of external and internal evidence now available. In Chapter Two, the evolution of the Tathāgatagarbha will be outlined, based upon the first two Tathāgatagarbhan texts, the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra and the Pu tseng pu chien ching, which predate the Śrīmālādevī sūtra.[15]
In Chapter Three the characteristic format of the
Śrīmālādevī sūtra is summarized in relation to the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra and the Pu tseng pu chien. In Chapter Four the Tathāgatagarbha as presented in the Śrīmālādevī sūtra is analyzed with relation to the text as a whole, and in Chapter Five the annotated translation of the Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra is presented with notations of key differences between the two Chinese recensions and with references made to the two commentaries, Sheng-man ching pao-k'u and Shōmangyō gisho, and to the Sanskrit fragments noted above.
Appendix I is an attempt to lay the groundwork for a methodology of Buddhist studies which would provide a foundation for the skills needed for a critical analysis and interpretation of Buddhist phenomena. Appendix II is an annotated bibliography for studying the Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra. Appendix I is admittedly limited and will provide only the most general outline of the requisite methodological procedure in analyzing a Buddhist text. (Paul, introduction, 1–6)
Notes
- There are two English translations of the Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra: E. E. Obemiller, The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism (Rome: Acta Orientalia, 1932), (Shanghai reprint: 1940) and Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra): Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism (Rome: Series Orientale Rome XXIII, 1966). The Sanskrit text of the Ratnagotra-vibhāga-mahāyānottara-tantra śāstra, ed., by E. R. Johnston (Patna: Bihar Society, 1950) cites the Śrīmālādevī sūtra on pp. 3, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 45, 50, 55, 56, 59, 72, 73, 74, 76, and 79. A portion of these Sanskrit fragments have been noted below, in the translation, wherever differences or ambiguities in the Chinese recensions occur.
- Cf. Çikshāsamuccaya (A Compendium on Buddhist Teaching, ed. by Cecil Bendall (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, (1897-1902), vol. I of Bibliotheca Buddhica, reprinted by Indo-Iranian Journal (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957), pp. 42 and 43.
- Cf. Laṅkāvatāra sūtra, ed. by Bunyiu Nanjio, (Second edition, Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1956), p. 222 line 19 and p. 223 line 4.
- Cf. Mahāyāna sūtrālaṁkāra, ed. by Sylvain Lévi (Paris: 1907), (Shanghai reprint : 1940), Tome 1 (XI, 59), p. 70. The cited passage, attributed to the Śrīmālādevī sūtra, could not be found in either Chinese recension. Lévi also was unable to find the passage but does allude to the citation as being in the Çikshāsamuccaya, ed. by Cecil Bendall, op. cit., but these two citations are not of the same passage.
- The following citations are quoted in the Ch'eng wei-shih lun, translated by Hsüan-tsang (T.v.31, no. 1585, p. 1-60): (The remainder of this note is handwritten in Chinese and is unavailable.)
- (The first part of this note is handwritten in Chinese and is unavailable.) In the second year of T'ang emperor Chung-tsung in the reign of Shen-lung (706) he (Bodhiruci) returned to the capital (Loyang) to Chao ch'ung-fu temple to translate the Mahāratnakūṭa anthology. This anthology bad forty-nine old and new assemblies, totaling 120 ch., which were finished in the fourth month, eighth day of the second year of Hsun-t'ien (713). In the translation hall, the monks Ssu-chung and the Indian director Iśara (?) translated the Sanskrit: while the Indian monks Prajñāgupta (?) and Dharma were consulted concerning the Sanskrit meaning." (T.v.50, no. 2061, p. 720b)
The Sung kao seng chuan, 30 ch., was compiled by Chih-lun and Tsang-ning of the Sung dynasty during the period from the beginning of the T'ang dynasty until 967 according to Ui Hakuju, Bukkyō jiten (A Buddhist Dictionary), (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1971), p. 654 and until 988 according to Nakamura Hajime, Shin-bukkyō jiten (The New Buddhist Dictionary), (Tokyo: Seishin shobō, 1972), p. 329. - According to the Sung kao seng chuan, op. cit., (p. 720c) Bodhiruci died in the fifteenth year of K'ai-yuan (727) of T'ang at the age of 156.
- The differences noted between the Chinese and Tibetan recensions are based upon the Shōmangyō hōgatsu dōji shomongyō (Kyoto: Kōkyō shoin, 1940) by Tsukinowa Kenryū.
- Tibetan commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga do interpret the passages which cite the Śrīmālādevī sūtra. These are not discussed within the present study.
- Kokuyaku-issaikyō hōshaku-bu shichi, Ono Masao (gen. ed.) (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1958), p. 84 lists the monks who attempted to write commentaries now lost. The Kao seng chuan, compiled by Hui-chao of the Liang dynasty, is the record of approximately 253 eminent monks from 67 A.D. through 519 A.D. Cf. Ui, Shin-bukkyō jiten, op. cit., p. 303.
- For a complete listing of all commentaries in both Chinese and Japanese, extant and no longer extant, see below - Appendix II, Annotated Bibliography.
- Fujieda Akira, "Hokucho ni okeru Shōmangyō no tenshō" in Tōhō gakuhō, v.XL, 1973, p. 334. (Journal of the Institute of Humanities) (Jimbun Kagaku kenkyūsho) (Kyoto University).
- According to the Bussho kaisetsu daijiten, Ono Masao {gen.ed.) (Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1966), vol. V, p. 350, this text was composed by both Prince Shōtoku and Ming-k'ung.
- Prince Shōtoku most probably did not compose the Shōmangyō gisho since many of the texts which the Gisho cites were not known to Prince Shōtoku but were introduced to Japan at a much later date. For the transmission of the Chinese commentaries on the Śrīmālādevī-siṁhanāda sūtra, see "Hokucho ni okeru Shōmangyō", op. cit. For the "original" Gisho, composed by a Chinese scholar of the North-South dynastic period, residing in North China, see "Shōman gisho hongi" in Shōtoku taishi kenkyū, v. 5 (Osaka: Shitennoji Joshi Daigaku, 1973) by Koizumi Enjun in which the original Chinese commentary is edited and later almost entirely copied in the Shōmangyō gisho.
The research on these commentaries at the time of this writing has been undertaken by members of the Jimbun Kagaku kenkyusho who are affiliated with Kyoto University. From analyzing the Tun-huang manuscripts, two very similar hypotheses have been developed: a) The Gisho itself was written by a Chinese scholar, or b) The original for the Shōmangyō gisho, viz. Shōman gisho hongi (or, Sheng-man i-su ben-i), was composed by a Northern Chinese scholar and later almost entirely interpolated into the Shōmangyō gisho by Prince Shōtoku or one of his followers. - The analysis of Tathāgatagarbha was undertaken in consultation with Professors Yuichi Kajiyama, Chairman of Buddhist Studies, Kyoto University, and Gadjin Nagao, Professor Emeritus in Buddhist Studies, Kyoto University.
I focus particularly on Yinshun's text A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha, for it serves as a concise statement of his interpretation of the tathāgatagarbha and its relationship to emptiness. In this text, Yinshun continually asserts the doctrine of emptiness as the definitive expression of Buddhist truth and relegates the tathāgatagarbha to the category of expedient means. He does this by examining the development of the tathāgatagarbha emphasizing particularly its evolution within pre-Mahāyāna and Mahāyāna textual sources said to have had their genesis in India such as the Āgamas, the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras and the Ratnagotravibhāga. For Yinshun, to regard the tathāgatagarbha as the ultimate truth rather than as an expedient means can only result in misguided practice and confusion about how to attain enlightenment.
I conclude by asking a number of general questions about Yinshun's thought and its relationship to the early to mid-twentieth century intellectual milieu in China. I also inquire about how Yinshun's ideas have contributed to the development of contemporary Chinese Buddhist movements flourishing in Taiwan today. (Source: Worldcat Library Materials Online)
Through a close examination on three Sanskrit compounds — i.e., tathāgatanairātmyagarbha, tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna and pariniṣpannasvabhāvas tathāgatagarbhahṛdayam — in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, this thesis will demonstrate how the tathāgatagarbha thought in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra is significantly enriched by Yogācāric influence.
First, in regard to tathāgata-nairātmya-garbha, a doctrinal review of the term "nairātmya" is necessary, because its definition differs according to different traditions. In primitive Buddhism, the term "nairātmya" is a synonym of the term "anātman" (non-existence of a substantial self), which indicates that in the realm of suffering and the impermanence of life phenomena that arise according to the principle of co-dependent
origination/ pratītyasamutpāda, no eternal and dependent ātman can be found. According to
the Madhyamaka School, the term "nairātmya" is a synonym of the term "niḥsvabhāva" (no
Secondly, in regard to tathāgatagarbhālayavijñāna, a doctrinal development is promoted owing to the identification of tathāgatagarbha with ālayavijñāna, which according to the Yogācāra School is also named "sarvabīljavijñāna" (cognition as the seed of everything). This latter synonym references its function of bringing forth all beings just as a giant tree originates from a seed. As a result of its identification with the ālayavijñāna, the tathāgatagarbha is said to be endowed with the function of bringing forth all forms of existence and thus becomes the "producing cause" of all. This interpretation is not seen in earlier scriptures wherein the tathāgatagarbha is described simply as a static substance supporting all beings.
Thirdly, in regard to pariniṣpannasvabhāvastathāgata-garbhahṛdayam, the implication of the tathāgatagarbha was expanded substantially by declaring that pariniṣpannasvabhāva is the very essence of tathāgatagarbha. The term "pariniṣpannasvabhāva" according to some important Yogācāra texts is defined as tathatā (ultimate realm of suchness). The combining of pariniṣpannasvabhāva with tathāgatagarbha that had formerly focused on the subjective potential of realizing wisdom, shifts the doctrinal emphasis toward the objective realm of realized perfection.
This thesis reveals that, having assimilated the Yogācāric doctrine of dharmanairātmya, ālayavijñāna and pariniṣpannasvabhāva, the tathāgatagarbha thinking in Laṅkāvatārasūtra presents the comprehensive and distinctive features in comparison to the scriptures that preceded it.
Buddha Nature or Tathāgatagarbha is a complex phenomenon that has been the subject of discussion in Buddhist cultures for centuries. This study presents for the first time a survey of the extent of Tibetan commentarial literature based upon the Indian Tathāgatagarbha Śāstra, the Ratnagotravibhāga, as well as a comparison of passages of Tibetan interpretations upon The Three Reasons given for the presence of Tathāgatagarbha in the Ratnagotravibhāga. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the inconsistencies regarding the dating, authorship, structure and content of this source text within the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan traditions.
Thereby the present study addresses primarily the need for an overview of the Tibetan commentarial literature upon this important Śāstra, by surveying more than forty Tibetan commentaries. This survey will facilitate contextualization of future studies of the individual commentaries. Secondarily it addresses the need for documentation and interpretation of precise concepts and arguments, by presenting line for line comparison of passages of interpretations by four different authors, Rngog Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109), Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292-1361), Rgyal tshab dar ma rin chen (1364-1432) and Mi pham phyogs las rnam rgyal (1846-1912). This comparison will trace divergent traditions of Tathāgatagarbha interpretation based on the Ratnagotravibhāga in Tibet.
It becomes apparent that the main divergence in these four authors' Tathāgatagarbha exegesis hinges on their interpretation of Dharmakāya and the role it plays as the first supporting reason for the presence of Tathāgatagarbha. Where some interpret Tathāgatagarbha as being "empty", others maintain that it is "full of qualities", apparent contradictions that however, are based upon the same scriptural passages of the source text, the Ratnagotravibhāga. That the ambiguous nature of the source text accommodates such seemingly contradictory interpretations should be kept in mind when studying Tibetan interpretations so as to avoid dismissal of certain interpretations in favour of others.
This dissertation begins with definitions of the term "tathāgatagarbha" and some of its synonyms which are followed by a brief review of the historical development of the Tathāgatagarbha theory from India to China. With these as the background knowledge, it is easier to point out the fallacies of the two Japanese scholars' criticism on this theory. A key issue in their criticism is that they viewed the Tathāgatagarbha theory as the ātman of the Upaniṣads in disguise. It is therefore necessary to discuss not only the distinction between the ātman mentioned in the Tathāgatagarbha theory and that in the Upaniṣads but also the controversy over the issue of ātman versus anātman among the Buddhist scholars.
In the discussion to clarify the issue of ātman in the Tathāgatagarbha theory, it is demonstrated that the ātman in the Tathāgatagarbha theory is not only uncontradictory to the doctrine of anātman in Buddhism but very important to the Bodhisattva practices in the Mahāyāna Buddhism. It functions as a unity for the Bodhisattvas to voluntarily return to the world of saṃsāra again and again. Furthermore, the purport of the entire theory, that all sentient beings are endowed with the essence of the Buddha, supports various Bodhisattva practices such as the aspiration to save all beings in the world, the six perfections, etc. In a word, the Tathāgatagarbha theory is an excellent representative of the soteriology of the Mahāyāna Buddhism. Included in the end of this dissertation is an annotated translation of the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. (Source Accessed May 26, 2020)
This doctoral dissertation studies the Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra), the only surviving Indian Buddhist treatise on the Buddha-essence doctrine, by way of one of its major Tibetan commentaries, rGyal-tshab Dar-ma-rin-chen (1364-1432)'s Theg pa chen po rGyud bla ma'i ṭīkā. This project consists of three parts: a special edition of the first chapter of the Theg pa chen po rGyud bia ma'i ṭīkā, an English translation of the selected sections of that commentary, and a comparative analysis which follows six distinct lines of inquiry.
The six lines are: rGyal-tshab's doctrinal classification of the text; his critiques of absolutism, skepticism, and quietism in connection with diverse interpretations of the Buddha-essence doctrine in Tibetan traditions as well as a tentative comparison with critiques of the theory of "Original-enlightenment" in modern Chinese Buddhism; his analysis of the title of Tibetan version and the structure of the text; rGyal-tshab's
This comparative approach will provide a broader synthetic understanding of the role that Buddha-essence played as a doctrinal genre in Tibetan intellectual history.
More specifically, this study will explore the relationship between the theory and practice of the two truths and the Buddha-nature. In these two significant components of Chi-tsang's thought, one can see the synthesis of the Prajñāpāramitā doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) and the Buddha-nature theory of "not-empty" (aśūnya). In combining these two major doctrinal trends of Mahāyāna Buddhism, Chi-tsang's thought is innovative and constitutes an important phase in Chinese intellectual history. (Koseki, introduction, 1)
Notes
- Biographical data on Chi-tsang can be found in the Hsü Kao-seng-chuan (T5O, 513c-515a). The material selected by Tao-hsüan explains that Chi-tsang was a third generation Chinese whose ancestors originally came from Parthia {An-hsi). Passing through what is now North Vietnam, his family eventually settled in Chin-ling {Nanching), where Chi-tsang was born. According to the biography, Chi-tsang's countenance was Central Asian, but his speech was Chinese, and he apparently never forgot his ethnic background. Many of his works are often signed, "Hu Chi-tsang," again indicating his Central Asian origins. Chi-tsang came from a family of Buddhists; his father was also a monk who took the name, Tao-liang. Two points in the biography are rather hazy. First, the biography states that Chi-tsang became a novice under Fa-lang (507–581) when he was seven. Material on Fa-lang indicates that he left Mt. She, the center of San-lun studies in the south (Chiang-nan), in 558 to reside at the Hsing-huang ssu in Chien-k'ang (Nanching). At that time, Chi-tsang was ten or eleven. Second, the biography also notes contact with Paramārtha, the Tripiṭaka-master, who arrived in China in 546. According to Kanakura Enshō, Paramārtha entered Chin-ling in 548 and immediately left the following year. Chi-tsang may have received his name from Paramārtha, but during Paramārtha's brief stay in Chin-ling, Chi-tsang_probably had not made his appearance in the world. See Kanakura Enshō, Sanron Gengi (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1941), pp. 191–92. In addition to the primary material, see, also, Ōchō Enichi, "Eon to Kichizō," Bukkyō Shisō-shi Ronshū (Tokyo: Daizō Shuppansha, 1964), pp. 433–450; Hirai Shunei, Chūgoku Hannya Shisō-shi Kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjū-sha, 1976), pp. 346–50. For a discussion of the three Mādhyamika texts (Sanlun), translated by Kumārajīva (Middle Treatise, Twelve Topic Treatise, and the Hundred Treatise by Āryadeva), see Richard Robinson, Early Mādhyamika in India and China (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), pp. 28–39.
- In addition to these six essays, two additional essays have been added, a content analysis of sūtras and śāstras. The material in these sections is taken from Chi-tsang's other work, the Sanlun-hsüan-i. The essay on the two truths is similar in content to an independent work on the two truths, the Erh-t_i-i. Material on ekayāna is also similar to his large work on the Lotus Sūtra, the Fa-hua-hsüan-lun. The essay on the "Two Knowledges" draws much of its material from a large commentary on the Vimalakīrti-sūtra, the Ching-ming~hsüan-lun. Finally, the essays on Buddha-nature and nirvāṇa are independent works and do not overlap with his other writings. The origins of the essay on the "Eight Negations" is not clear. Ui Hakuju, for example, believes that this essay was not written by Chi-tsang. Early Sanron scholars such as Chinkai also question the authenticity of this essay (cf. Daijo genron mondō, T70, 572c- 573a). Whether Chi-tsang actually wrote this essay still remains a question, and the most common answer given is that this essay was written by Chi-tsang's contemporary, Chün-cheng. Chün-cheng is the author of another Sui Sanlun work, the Ta-ch'eng-ssu-lun-hsüan-i. Despite the problem of authorship, Hirai believes that the Hsüan-lun as a whole is a work written by Chi-tsang (or compiled by a disciple). The content of the essays is consistent with Chi-tsang's other works, and all the Japanese catalogs and commentators agree that it is a work written by the "Great Master of Chia-hsiang ssu," Chi-tsang's posthumous title. Ui also noted that the text was known as the Ta-ch'eng-hsüan-i or the Ta-ch'eng-hsüan-chang; he also referred to a twenty chüan version of the text, but did not give his source. Again, the Japanese catalogs and commentators all agree that the text was written in five chüan. See Ui Hakuju, "Daijo genron kaidai," Kokuyaku Issaikyō, Shoshubu I (Tokyo: Daitō Shuppansha, 1965), pp. 67–73. See, also, Hirai Chūgoku Hannya, pp. 356; 378.
- The Sanskrit for Buddha-nature (buddha-dhātu or buddha-gotra) follows Takasaki Jikidō, Nyoraizo Shisō no Kenkyū (Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1974), p. 11. See, also, his article, "Nyoraizō-Busshō shisō," Kōza Bukkyō Shisō, vol. 3 (Tokyo: Risōsha, 1975), pp. 101–133. Further, see Ogawa Ichijō, Nyoraizo-Busshō no Kenkyū (Kyoto: Buneidō, 1974), pp. 62–66.
The dissertation includes four main chapters, these are: I. Zhanran's biography; II. The idea of Buddha-nature in Chinese Buddhism; III. Demonstration of the Buddha-nature of the insentient in Zhanran’s The Diamond Scalpel treatise; IV. Summary.
In the first chapter Zhanran’s life is presented through a translation, comparison and analysis
of the chapters dealing with Zhanran’s life from the biographies of monks written in the Song
Dynasty (960−1279). Biographies besides historical data also contain several miraculous elements, thus, this first chapter also provides a glimpse into the world of Buddhist biographies. This chapter also briefly introduces the reader into the history of Tiantai school before Zhanran, therefore this is placed at the beginning of the dissertation.Because the main theme of Zhanran’s treatise is the Buddha-nature of the insentient, the translation and analysis of the text is preceded by a chapter on the idea of Buddha-nature, focusing on its apparition, evolution an interpretations in Chinese Buddhism. This chapter is divided into two major parts, the first part gives a presentation of those sūtras and treatises, which had the greatest influence on the formation of Chinese interpretations of the notion. The second part deals with those Chinese traditions and schools, thinkers and ideas, which had great impact on the formation of the Chinese Buddha-nature theory. While presenting certain writings, schools and thinkers a greater emphasis is laid on those ideas, which appear in The Diamond Scalpel, or can be proven to have influenced Zhanran’s philosophy. Thus, both the premises for Zhanran’s conclusion and the ideas to be refuted clear out. The objective of this chapter is to place Zhanran’s work in a greater context, and to determine those antecedents, that lead Zhanran towards the formulation of his ideas.
The third, most important and most extensive chapter is the translation of The Diamond Scalpel, complemented with translations from commentaries written to it, detailed analysis and interpretation of the text divided into sixty separate chapters. One of the most important objectives is to grasp the main ideas, and provide this difficult text a clear and easily understandable interpretation.
The fourth chapter consists of a summary of the main ideas presented in The Diamond Scalpel, and an overall analysis of the text. (Pap, "Theme and Objective of the Research," 1–3)
Chinese Buddhist thought. Unlike other more technical expositions of Buddhist teachings, Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity (Yuan Jen lun) does not presuppose a detailed knowledge of Buddhist doctrine. In a brief and accessible fashion, it presents a systematic overview of the major teachings within Chinese Buddhism. The organizational framework used by Tsung-mi, moreover, represents one of the primary methods devised by Chinese Buddhists to organize and make sense of the diverse body of teachings they received from India. Finally, Tsung-mi's essay is especially noteworthy in that it sheds light on the interaction of Buddhism with the
indigenous intellectual and religious traditions of Confucianism and Taoism. Peter N. Gregory's commentary, which follows a running translation of the work, will help bridge the temporal and cultural gap separating contemporary Western readers from the text's intended medieval Chinese audience. (Source: back cover)This dissertation is a study of the process through which Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, by synthesizing doctrines and texts into consistent models, integrates views of reality within doctrinal and soteriological systems. It consists of an analysis of the most fundamental doctrinal tension found in the Tibetan tradition, namely the apparent inconsistency of doctrines belonging to the negative Mādhyamika and to the more affirmative Yogācāra trends of Mahāyāna Buddhism. As a case study aiming to provide a first systematic examination of that problematic, the dissertation surveys and analyzes Tibetan interpretation of the set of texts referred to as the Five Treatises of Maitreya (byams chos sde lnga), and at the way those interpretations deal with the doctrinal tensions found in that set of text. In addition to providing a recension of major interpretations of the Five Treatises developed between 1100 and 1500, a detailed account is given of the model of interpretation given by gSer mdog Paṇ chen Śākya mchog ldan, a famous teacher of the Sa skya school of Tibetan Buddhism. When confronted with the features of other interpretations, Śākya mchog ldan's interpretation of the Five Treatises, which proceeds primarily by allowing a plurality of views to be maintained even at the level of definitive meaning, provides us with a new insight in the Tibetan philosophical tradition: the most fundamental dimension of philosophical reconciliation of doctrinal views, especially of the kind found in the Five Treatises, can be described as pertaining to textual hermeneutics. Moreover, Śākya mchog ldan's contribution to that domain of Buddhist thought, by placing hermeneutics at the very centre of his system of Buddhist doctrine and practice, suggests that hermeneutics is a fundamental category of all Buddhist philosophical debates, and that it should be part of any attempt to understand the Tibetan philosophical tradition.
The objective of this thesis is to investigate the multivariant levels of interpretation within selected Caryās. The Caryās selected depict Buddha Nature as it was understood in tāntric Buddhism in the area of Bengal. There are three levels of interpretation. The first level is the blatant meaning, and is outlined in the translation section of the songs. The second level is the anuyoga/Mother tāntra meaning. A comparison is made between the interpretations of selected scholars. The final level is the Mahāmudra meaning. This level is inferred from various textual sources.
This thesis explores the development of an important Indian Buddhist scripture. the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra, and the tradition of exegesis and practice based upon it. It consists of an edition and translation of the first four chapters of the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra, as well as a translation of the corresponding portion of Tsongkhapa's Total Illumination of the Hidden Meaning, a Tibetan commentary on this scripture. These texts are contextualized via efforts to define "Tantric Buddhism" as it is understood by the tradition itself, and via explorations of both the intellectual and socio-historical contexts within which Tantric Buddhism developed, and the ways in which different subtraditions within it were elaborated and categorized.
It is argued that a common element of Tantric traditions is their resistance to the hegemonic ideology of caste. An exploration of this ideology and Buddhist resistance to it is undertaken. Tantric discourse was deployed as a form of resistance against caste ideology, but also constituted a counter ideology, which centered around the figure of the guru as a nexus of power and authority, and articulated in the model of the maṇḍala.
The rDzogs Chen tradition is an extremely innovative philosophical and contemplative system originating out of Buddhist Tantric mysticism within the 8th-10th centuries, and in many ways is quite unusual in the context of normative Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. While its origins remain controversial, we currently possess only a large body of canonical and exegetical literature in what claim to be Tibetan translations, as well as an extensive secondary literature that developed in Tibet from the 10th-20th centuries. The tradition is especially striking in its implicit development of a model of rigorous philosophical thought that refuses to be reduced to syllogistic reasoning (though utilizing it as a secondary hermeneutical tool) or dismissed as mere "aesthetics" as it treats Buddhist Tantra as a serious philosophical innovation that must be utilized to reinterpret previous traditional scholasticism, in stark contrast to the trend to extend traditional scholastic methodologies into Tantra, and deny the revolution of "poetic thought" they may embody. In addition, its complex evolutionary emphasis and description of a non-reified intelligence operative at every level of the Universe is strikingly similar to recent developments in modern scientific research. Finally, it would seem that the Great Perfection represents the most sophisticated interpretation of the so-called "Buddha nature" tradition within the context of Indo-Tibetan thought, and as such, is of extreme importance for research into classical exoteric philosophic systems such as Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, while also providing fertile grounds for future explorations of the interconnections between Indo-Tibetan and East Asian forms of Buddhism, as well as between Indo-Tibetan Buddhism and contemporary Indian developments such as the tenth century non-dual Shaivism of Abhinavagupta.
Though this tradition is by no means homogenous, one can readily distinguish out a classical system encapsulated by "eleven adamantine topics" (rDo rJe'i gNas bCu gCig), which together constitute a wide ranging journey spanning the early history of the Universe to the climaxing heights of a Buddha's full enlightenment. This system is most brilliantly articulated by the fourteenth century Tibetan scholar kLong Chen Rab 'Byams Pa (1308-1363) in his The Seven Treasuries (mDzod bDun) and The Seminal Heart-Essence in Four Parts (sNying Thig Ya bZhi), which contain some of the world's most profound poetic and philosophic masterpieces. This dissertation thus bases itself on Longchenpa's corpus, and his own textual sources, namely The Seventeen Tantras, The Seminal Heart-Essence of the Sky Dancer (mKha' 'Gro sNying Thig) by Padmasambhava, and The Seminal Heart-Essence of Vimalamitra (Bi Ma sNying Thig) by Vimalamitra and other early non-Tibetan figures in the tradition. In particular, it focuses on kLong Chen Rab 'Byams Pa's The Treasury of Words and Meanings (Tshig Don mDzod) which is directly structured on the aforementioned eleven topics, and is his most succinct yet extensive exposition of the tradition of the Great Perfection in its entirety. Part I is an overview of these eleven topics in general, as well as in the context of The Treasury of Words and Meaning's corresponding eleven chapters; Part II consists of a translation of the first five chapters from The Treasury of Words and Meanings (centering on the primordial
nature of the Universe, the early history of its exteriorization into space and time, the
origination of alienation, evolution, and a subtle analysis of the energetics of human existence);
and Part III provides a very lengthy commentary on those five chapters in the form of running
annotations (the bulk of the thesis thus occurs in Part Ill). In Part Ill, the above texts are
systematically analyzed in relation to Longchenpa's discussions of a given issue, and many lengthy passages extracted from them are translated therein, along with extensive interpretative
comments.
Although some scholars have attempted to marginalize the tradition in relation to Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, in fact the Great Perfection can be understood as its culmination, since in its seamless blend of the exoteric and esoteric it overcomes many of the limitations inherent in the "normative" traditions' sterile division between "philosophy" and the esoteric practices/theory of Tantra. This dissertation clarifies the essential structure, orientation, and content of the tradition, as well as providing a very detailed explication of the first five of the eleven topics
Part I, the historical and doctrinal background, consists of six chapters: Chapter 1 describes the authorship and the history of the transmission of the RGV in India, using Indian and Tibetan materials. Chapter 2 studies six different Tibetan translations of the RGV, clarifying how the RGV was transmitted from India to Tibet. Chapter 3 outlines rNgog's life and writings. Chapter 4 presents rNgog's philosophical positions taught in his RGV commentary. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the impact of his interpretations on the later Tibetan doctrinal developments, and reactions to them. Part II is a critical edition of rNgog-lo's RGV commentary, Theg chen rgyud bla ma'i don bsdus pa (1a-46a5 and 65a5-66a4), preceded by an explanation of textual materials and an outline of the whole text. Part III presents an annotated translation of that commentary.
Appendix A presents a diplomatic edition of rNgog-lo's “topical outline” of the RGV, his other work related to the RGV (discovered at Kharakhoto and preserved in the British Library). Appendix B presents a critical edition of a versified summary of the RGV in Sanskrit, the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa composed by the Kashmiri Paṇḍita Sajjana, a teacher of rNgog-lo. Appendix C provides another Sanskrit commentary on the RGV, Vairocanarakṣita's Mahāyanottaratantraṭippaṇī, while appendix D presents translations of relevant passages from the Sākārasiddhi and Sākarasaṃgraha of Jñānaśrīmitra. Appendix E presents rNgog-lo's identification of the passages of the RGVV that refer to the Nidānaparivarta (“introductory chapter”) of the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra, as well as a topical outline of this chapter of the sūtra. Appendix F investigates the dating of Blo-gros-mtshungs-med, who among later Tibetans criticized rNgog-lo's position most severely. Appendix G presents a list of commentaries on the RGV. Appendix H lists
records of the RGV's transmission lineage from gsan yigs. (Kano, introduction, 12-13)This doctrine has played an important role in the history of Buddhism. Although rudimentary elements of this doctrine can be identified already within the Pāli canon,[1] those passages relating to the natural luminosity of the mind, which is said to be temporarily stained by adventitious mental afflictions, required the emergence of the Mahāyāna movement before developing into a fully fledged doctrine in its own right. Since it is supported by a number of sūtras[2] and śāstras (i.e. the Buddhist canon composed of the Buddha’s sermons and the Indian commentarial literature), it can be regarded as a third school of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist thought, the other two being Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. However, the concept of buddha-nature reached its apogee not in India but in East Asia and Tibet where it became a cornerstone for Buddhist philosophy and religious practice. In Tibet, in particular, this concept was treated diversely by many scholars, all of whom were ambitious to fit it into the philosophical framework of their own respective schools. Rong-ston Shes-bya kun-rig (1367–1449) of the Sa-skya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism figures among the most influential of these scholars. In general, his commentary on the Ratnagotravibhāga, the main Indian śāstra on buddha-nature, and in particular, a translation of his exposition of the subject by means of ten categories, will be the focus of this work.
In the first chapter I will introduce the doctrine of buddha-nature, giving a brief account of its sources and formation. The second chapter will deal with the main treatise on buddha-nature, the Ratnagotravibhāga. Here, I will present the text itself, discuss the question of its authorship, as well as its transmission in India and early reception in Tibet. This chapter will also include a brief overview of previous studies on the Ratnagotravibhāga and the doctrine of buddha-nature. The third chapter will be devoted to the author of our treatise and his presentation of the subject. The final and main part of the work will consist of an annotated translation of a selected passage of his abovementioned commentary.
Throughout this work I have used the transliteration system of Turrell Wylie for the Tibetan. (Bernert, introduction, 5–6 )
Notes
- For example in AN I.v, 9: “This mind, O monks, is luminous! But it is defiled by adventitious defilements.” (After Mathes 2008: ix.) See also Takasaki 1966: 34–35.
- A prevalent doxographical classification of Buddhist sūtras distinguishes between the so called “three turnings of the Dharma-wheel” (a concept introduced in the Sandhinirmocanasūtra). Scriptures of the first turning fundamentally discuss the four noble truths as expounded in Nikāya Buddhism which represents the common ground for all traditions and the basic framework for all Buddhist teachings. Sūtras from second turning emphasise the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) as expounded in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, and those of the third teach the about the three natures (trisvabhāva), the latter two being classified as belonging to the Mahāyāna corpus. The sūtras on buddha-nature are generally regarded as belonging to the third turning.
- As Seyfort Ruegg (1969: 2) remarks, the language used in the tathāgatagarbha treatises differs noticeably from that of the other two schools, and even comes suspiciously close to that of the Vedānta. Indeed, a number of modern scholars have accused this doctrine to be alien to Buddhist thought, an accusion refuted by others. For a collection of articles on this topic see Hubbard and Swanson 1997.
- Cf. Wylie 1959.
This thesis gives an account of Yogācāra Buddhist thought as presented in the works of Sthiramati, a leading sixth-century thinker in the Yogācāra tradition, along with a translation of his commentary on the Chapter on Enlightenment of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. The thesis introduces Sthiramati's life and times, and discusses the authorship and authenticity of works attributed to him.
Sthiramati's viewpoint is placed in the overall context of Yogācāra ontology. The thesis elucidates the fundamental categories of Yogācāra ontology, giving an analysis of the three identities (trisvabhāva) and their interrelationships, the connection between the three identities and the principle of representation-only (vijñaptimātra), and an account of basis-transformation (āśrayaparāvṛtti). This provides a philosophical foundation for interpreting the Yogācāra concept of Buddhahood, bringing out the intrinsic link between ontological realization and soteriological attainment in the Yogācāra system.
The thesis traces the Yogācāra account of Buddhahood in both its essence and its manifestation: Buddhahood is shown as both the absolute ground of being and as the locus for innumerable pure qualities and forms of mastery through which enlightenment is communicated to ordinary sentient beings. In this connection, the thesis presents the Yogācāra analysis of the Three Bodies of Buddha (Dharmakāya, the Truth-Body; Sambhogakāya, the Enjoyment-Body; Nirmāṇakāya, the Emanation-Body), which encompass both the essential being and the manifest functioning of Buddha. The three Budda-bodies are correlated with the four liberative wisdoms (jñāna) of the Buddha (the Mirror-like Wisdom, the Equality Wisdom, the Analytical Wisdom, and the All-Accomplishing Wisdom). The thesis recounts the classic Yogācāra discussion of the attributes of Buddhahood in terms of unity and multiplicity, and the nature and scope of Buddha's salvific activities.
The aims of the thesis are (1) to present Yogācāra Buddhology in its own terms; (2) to clarify the conceptual structure of Yogācāra Buddhology and the relationship in Yogācāra thought between Buddha and the phenomenal world, and between Buddha and the minds of sentient beings; and (3) to facilitate cross-cultural comparisons between Buddha and concepts of the Absolute in other religious traditions by providing a reliable presentation of the ontological, epistemological, and soteriological aspects of Yogācāra Buddhology.
The tathāgatagarbha is an intrinsically luminous consciousness naturally inscribed with the complete knowledge of the Buddha along with infinite Buddha-virtues and the potential to attain them. Studies in the past have focused on its potential aspect and negated it as an ontological entity. In this dissertation I examine it as a true self of sentient beings arguing that being beginningless, unborn, unconditioned, eternally unchanging, enduring and imperishable, it qualifies as true self. Also, the Mahāyāna-Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra unhesitatingly acknowledges it as true self, and its features conform to the definition of the true self of this sūtra and of Bhāvaviveka. I find ample support for its interpretation as true self in the sūtras on this doctrine. Besides, its features correspond with the features of the Brahmanic, Sāṅkhya and Jaina true selves. The Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine is recognized as a provisional teaching. The centrality of the doctrines of śūnyatā, tathatā, darmadhātu, dharmakāya and nirvāṇa suggest that it is truly Mahāyāna in spirit. According to the Ratnagotravibhāga, without realizing the emptiness of own being, nirvāṇa is not attained. This “Ultimate Doctrine”, it adds, is taught to remove the five defects. The defects, I find, are connected with not knowing emptiness or understanding the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata nihilistically. As a corrective to the nihilistic understanding of the Mahāyāna Doctrine, it qualifies as an ultimate teaching. I study the Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine from the following perspectives: the tathāgatagarbha as true self; the all-pervading, undifferentiated Essence of Buddhahood as Cosmic Self; and the concept of liberation. I also compare this doctrine to the doctrines of the above-mentioned three traditions and study their concepts of true self, the concepts of Cosmic Self of the Brahmanic and Early Sāṅkhya doctrines; and the concepts of liberation of these three doctrines. I follow the trajectory of thought of the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Tathāgatagarbha group of texts.
This dissertation provides a comprehensive study and complete translation of Tao-sheng's Commentary on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra (CSPS). This document occupies an important place in Chinese Buddhist literature. Its significance in the study of Chinese Buddhism can be described in two ways. Firstly, the CSPS was the first commentary ever written on the Lotus Sūtra, which was to become a scripture of fundamental importance on the Far Eastern Buddhist scene, especially for the later Chinese Buddhist schools. Furthermore, it was the first commentary on any Buddhist scripture that was written in Chinese and structured in fully developed commentarial form. The CSPS set a pattern in many ways for later Buddhists to follow in terms of both structure and ideology.
Secondly, the CSPS is a rich source of Tao-sheng's seminal ideas. Tao-sheng (ca. 360-434) has been regarded, both in his time and subsequently, as a uniquely creative and prophetic thinker. The CSPS, the only writing of Tao-sheng preserved in complete form, is essential to any study of Tao-sheng's own original thought. Most of his theses and arguments, which were controversial in his day, were originally propounded in his other writings, but the commentary may provide at least the general structure of Tao-sheng's thought.
The thesis is composed of two main portions: "Study" (Part I-IV) and "Translation" (Part V). Part I sets out and clarifies the problems involved in the study of Tao-sheng, the aims and method of the present study. Part II as the introductory step to the main task involving the CSPS extensively examines Tao-sheng as a whole as reflected in other sources, in terms of his background, historical and biographical, his works, his doctrines, and his influence. Part III is devoted to a critical examination of the CSPS proper. Here I undertake an in-depth analysis in several different ways in respect with both form and content, or language and ideology. The analysis focuses on how Tao-sheng renders, successfully or otherwise, the ancient Indian system of religious thought into the current Chinese language, which was already laden with indigenous philosophical connotations. Here I also trace and reconstruct Tao-sheng's thought incorporated in the commentary in accordance with his distinct themes. Part IV reviews the findings and significance of the study conducted. In brief, the thesis is the first full-scale study of Tao-sheng and the commentary.
Finally, a complete translation of the text is presented along with detailed annotations including the classical sources of Chinese philosophical terms used and numerous corruptions of the text. In light of the significance of Tao-sheng and the CSPS, the translation answers the need for a complete translation of the text into a modern language and will serve as a basis for further study.
However, historically, China did mysteriously seem to lose her sense of proportion in what may be regarded as her "medieval", or, better, Buddhist period, roughly from the fourth to the tenth centuries A.D. At that time, China showed she was capable of all the extravagance of the spirit that one, for better or for worse, still associates with the word "religious."
By the twelveth or thirteenth century, during the Sung period (960-1279 A.D.), China regained her sense of proportion and came down to earth once more. The Sung Neo-Confucian triumph was not simply due to the institutional strength of the literati alone, as has been so often argued. The same literati only a short while earlier embraced wholeheartedly the Buddhist mysteries. The Neo-Confucian triumph was due to new spiritual insights into the nature and destiny of man and the priorities of life. It is the Neo-Confucian polemics against the Buddhist that still cloud modern Chinese views of the Buddhist tradition. The anticlerical attitude of modern Western humanism introduced into China during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries does not help much to correct these long-cherished Neo-Confucian opinions. Even the more objective Sinologist still follow
Dr. Hu Shih's interpretation that Buddhism was ultimately an alien plague or anomaly that led China astray from her "predestined" humanism.1
In many studies on Chinese Buddhism, the emphasis has been put on the so-called "Sinicization" process and on the confrontation between Chinese and Indian "essences." For example, emphasis has been placed on how "otherworldly" Indian Buddhism was transformed by the Chinese "essence" of "worldliness." The assumption that cultures may be described in terms of "essences" oversimplifies the complex human issues. Additionally, too strong a focus on the dynamics of "acculturation" can misconstrue the religious elements involved. I would prefer to look at the issue from
a slightly different perspective. The question I raise is not how China was "Indianized'", as Hu Shih would put it, but how the Chinese were converted to the Buddhist Dharma (Law) and came to recognize the truth in it.1 Nor is it a question of how an Indian religion was "Sinicized" but how the Buddhist sangha (fellowship) in China underwent self-transformation, drawing upon inspirations from within the Buddhist tradition itself. For example, the turn towards the world or the rejection of otherworldliness or, better, "othershoreliness" was already in the Mahayana tradition itself as in the dictum "Samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara." The Buddhist tradition is never simply "otherworldly mystical"
but contains within itself a wealth of teachings providing a whole range of orientations towards the world. As the Buddhist sangha matured in China, the Chinese Buddhists merely developed those elements in the Mahayana tradition closest to her "native" heart.
The phenomenon of "Sinitic Mahayana" should therefore be objectively analyzed as a cultural phenomenon and also sympathetically appreciated in its own religious terms. Just as Christianity is considered to be a creative synthesis of the Classical and the Hebraic tradition, Sinitic Mahayana should also be seen as a proud and independent offspring of the Indian and Chinese confluence. The Hebraic concept of the Messiah and the Greek idea of the Logos merged into the Christian notion of Christ as the Word of God. Similarly, it can be shown that the mature Chinese Buddhist concept of li (principle) as it was used by the Hua-yen school, was a union of the Buddhist Dharma and the Chinese Tao. Li synthesized the original meanings of Dharma and Tao, both symbols for "Transcendence", and articulated their structural interrelationship in a manner unknown before in India or China. The Sinitic understanding of the Mahayana Dharma is comparable to the Christian Church's proclamation (kerygma) concerning God—it is a new insight into an eternal truth.
The approach outlined above· would seem to be the natural and proper approach in the understanding of Chinese Buddhism. However, for some reasons, scholars have not yet followed such paths of investigation. I hope the thesis' attempt to combine the traditional sectarian Buddhological approach (which sees all Chinese Buddhist innovations to be solidly grounded in sacred Indian scriptures) and the modern critical historical analysis can reveal more faithfully the dynamics of the Buddhist faith in Chinese history.1 The larger issues mentioned in the preface here form the backdrop for the more specific study of one Chinese Buddhist text in the body of the thesis. I am interested in the "emergence of Sinitic Mahayana" ca. 600 A.D. in China and in the role the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun) played in bringing it about.1 (Lai, preface, i–v)
Notes:
(as numbered in the original manuscript)
1. Hu Shih, "The Indianization of China: A Case Study in Cultural Borrowings," Independence, Convergence and Borrowing in Institutions, Thought and Art (Cambridge: .
Harvard Tercentenary Publication, 1937). Kenneth Ch'en, in his book The Chinese Transformation of Buddhism (Princeton: 1973) follows explicitly Hu Shih's approach.
1 See Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (New York: 1972). The Dharma is "Truth" and it is no more Indian than the Christian God is Jewish.
The present dissertation identifies the ontological presuppositions and the corresponding soteriological-epistemological principles that sustain and define the Mahāyāna Buddhist belief in the inherent potentiality of all animate beings to attain the supreme and perfect enlightenment of Buddhahood. More specifically, the study establishes a coherent metaphysic of Absolute Suchness (Tathatā), synthesizing the variant traditions of the Tathāgata-embryo (Tathāgatagarbha) and the Storehouse Consciousness (Ālayavijñāna).
The dissertation interprets the Buddhist enlightenment as the salvific-transformational moment in which Tathatā "awakens" to itself,
comes to perfect self-realization as the Absolute Suchness of reality, in and through phenomenal human consciousness. It is an interpretation of the Buddhist Path as the spontaneous self-emergence of "embryonic" absolute knowledge as it comes to free itself from the concealments of adventitious defilements, and possess itself in fully self-explicitated self-consciousness as the "Highest Truth" and unconditional nature of all existence; it does so only in the form of omniscient wisdom.
Aside from Ruegg's La Theorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra and Verdu's study of the Ālayavijñāna in Dialectical Aspects in Buddhist Thought, Western scholarship treating of the subject is negligible. And while both sources are excellent technical treatises, they fail to integrate in any detailed analysis the dual concepts as complementary modes of each other. Thus, the dissertation, while adopting the
methodology of textual analysis, has as its emphasis a thematic-interpretive study of its sources. Conducting a detailed analysis into the structure of the texts, the dissertation delineates and appropriates the inherent ontological, soteriological and epistemological foci which they themselves assume as their natural form.
Structurally, the dissertation is divided into three major parts. The first focuses on the Tathāgatagarbha, the second on the Ālayavijñāna, the third on their relation and deeper significance in the human thought tradition. The first two parts are sub-divided into seven and four chapters respectively. The former seven chapters establish the ontological identity of the Tathāgata-embryo (Tathagātagarbha) through a critical examination of the major sūtral authority for the concept, i.e., the Śrī-Mālā-Sūtra, and the primary śāstral elaboration inspired by it, viz., the Ratnagotravlbhāga.
Following the same pattern, the four chapters of part 2 note the role of the Laṅk¯āvatāra Sūtra as a principal scriptural advocate for the theory of the Storehouse Consciousness (Ālayavijñāna), while detailing the scholastic amplification of it in Hsüan Tsang's Ch'eng Wei-Shih Lun. Part 3 concludes the study by recapitulating the principal developments in the emergent complementarity of the two concepts, arguing that any adequate
discussion of the Buddha Nature must be informed on the one hand by the theory of the Tathāgatagarbha which grounds and authenticates its ontological status, and on the other by the Ālayavijñāna, its noetic-cognitive determination. While the former tends to elucidate the
process towards, and experience of enlightenment as a function of Absolute Suchness (Tathatā), the latter adopts the reciprocal perspective and examines the subject in the light and function of phenomenal consciousness.
By way of comparison with Western thought, the chapter likewise demonstrates the analogous dynamic in the bilateral theory of the Tathāgatagarbha-Ālayavijñāna and the Hegelian Absolute Spirit in-and-for-itself. Focusing upon The Phenomenology of Spirit, the chapter notes that the self-becoming process in and through which consciousness realizes its own plenitude is strikingly homologous to the theory of Buddhist enlightenment presented through the concept of the Tathāgatagarbha-Ālayavijñāna. It suggests that these two representative thought systems
More specifically, my objective has been to make a contribution to the ongoing investigations into the history of Buddhist philosophy by focussing on one Buddhist author's interpretation of a specific topic— the doctrine of anātma— and providing an analysis of it in relation to the views of several other Buddhist schools. I have attempted to demonstrate how Acarya Candrakirti's theory of self is significantly different from the generally accepted Buddhist explanation of this topic. In doing so, several relevant areas of Candrakirti's overall system are also examined. With regard to his Prasangika views on logic, I have introduced new material from the writings of Svatantrika scholars for the purpose of further clarifying the nature of the differences between these two Madhyamika schools of thought.
Part Two consists of a translation of Candrakirti's most comprehensive discussion of his views on the self. This text was not previously available in English. In several instances my translation also corrects misinterpretations that occur in the incomplete French translation of Professor Louis de la Vallée Poussin. The text consists of a section of the sixth chapter from Acarya Candrakirti's Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya. Since the original Sanskrit is not extant, my translation is based on the Tibetan translation. For a manuscript I have used the 1912 edition prepared by Professor Poussin and published by the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences as Volume IX of the Bibliotheca Buddhica series. In preparing the English translation, Professor Poussin's French translation as well as a partial Sanskrit reconstruction by N. Aiyaswami Sastri were consulted; however the most useful aid proved to be the Tibetan translation of a 12th century Indian commentary to Candrakirti's text composed by a certain Jayānanda and entitled Madhyamakāvatāratīka. This work provides a literal explanation for almost every word of Candrakirti's text and was extremely helpful for understanding numerous obscure passages.
Although several of the texts cited in Part One of the dissertation can be found in translations prepared by other scholars, I have presented my own version for all these quotations in order to maintain a consistency of style and terminology. The one exception occurs in the chapter on Prasangika logic, for which ample explanation is given there. (Engle, preface, iii–v)
This dissertation examines the notion that not only sentient beings but also insentient
ones, e.g., flora, mountains, rivers, and manmade objects, have Buddha-nature. Employing an
exegetical approach, I investigate Jingxi Zhanran’s (711-782) theory of the Buddha-nature of
insentient beings. Emphasizing the all-pervasiveness of Buddha-nature and the nonduality of
mind and material, he eliminates the absolute distinction between sentient and insentient beings
and contends that Buddha-nature includes all beings. Additionally, insisting on the Tiantai notion
of mutual inclusion, which reveals a two-way relationship between sentience and insentience,
Zhanran reverses the positions of the subjective observer and the objective phenomenon,
subjectifying insentient beings.
In addition to examining the theoretical profundity of Zhanran’s theory, my study examines the issues of sentience versus insentience and Buddha-nature that took place before Zhanran and discusses the subsequent Tiantai concerns with the Buddha-nature of insentient beings. Through textual analysis, I reexamine the emergence of the Chinese thought that connects Buddha-nature to insentient things, initially presented by Jingying Huiyuan (523-592) and Jiaxiang Jizang (549-623). I also illustrate that the concept of the Buddha-nature of insentient beings is implied in Zhiyi’s (538-597) thought by interpreting Zhiyi’s teachings that inspired Zhanran’s advocacy. Furthermore, I analyze, on doctrinal grounds, Chinese Tiantai descendants’ endorsement of Zhanran’s theory, contrasting it with their Japanese counterparts’, the latter who found it difficult to conceptualize how insentient beings’ spiritual cultivation might occur.
Although the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha can be traced to the teaching of an innately pure luminous mind (prakṛtiś cittasya prabhāsvarā) in early Buddhist teachings, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-parivarta (AAN) is often considered one of the earliest Buddhist scriptures that explicitly expound the teachings of the tathāgatagarbha.
The central message of the AAN focuses upon the non-increase and non-decrease nature of the dharmadhātu. This brings out the idea of the dharmadhātu as a totality which transcends all dualistic notions. Translated into Chinese by Bodhiruci in 525 CE, the AAN is now extant only in Chinese translation (Taishō no. 668). Unfortunately, no serious studies have ever been conducted on this sūtra in Western scholarship. The precise relationship between the tathāgatagarbha and the two Mahāyāna traditions, Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, is also worth investigating in detail. The thesis will argue that the tathāgatagarbha is not a separate school in Indian Buddhism. It will then study the historical issues relating to the AAN, followed by a philosophical investigation of its teachings. The thesis will also undertake an "external" consideration of the doctrinal relationship between the AAN and a number of sūtras and śāstras. It will also incorporate a study of Bodhiruci (菩提流支), of the Northern Wei (北魏) dynasty, who translated the AAN into Chinese, as well as the first complete English translation of the AAN from its extant Chinese version.
This study may provide an alternative view on the tathāgatagarbha theory. The thesis will argue that the tathāgatagarbha is referring to be an aspect of all experiences. This means that all beings are by nature having a dimension of the mind not fully realized, and it is yogic meditative practices that enable the practitioners to develop an awareness of the enlightenment which is always implicit in our consciousness.
Given the disregard many lamas and yogis have had towards the soteriological efficacy of epistemology, one may come to the false conclusion that epistemology is only relevant to the context of debate, without any application to meditation practice and the path to liberation. However, one can clearly see that this is not completely true, since Dharmakīrti (c. 600 CE), who is arguably Buddhism’s most influential epistemologist, provides an account of how a practitioner may attain the liberative cognition known as yogic direct valid means of cognition (rnal ’byor mngon sum tshad ma, hereafter referred to as yogic perception). In Tibet, the dGe lugs pa-s are particularly known for their soteriological use of epistemology, which is unsurprising given their emphasis on scholarship, but there are even thinkers in the meditation- oriented bKa’ brgyud school who have a soteriologically-oriented take on epistemology.
The aim in thesis is to show how bKa’ brgyud epistemologists’ (most notably, the Seventh Karma pa’s (1454-1506)) view on yogic perception differs from that of Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s, since most western scholarship on Buddhist epistemology has focused on them. Like Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s, the Seventh Karma pa describes the gradual path to attaining yogic perception through inference and familiarization, although there are striking differences in their understandings of the nature of what is observed in this type of perception. His epistemology is not only relevant to the scholarly path of inference, as one finds with most epistemologists, however. His view on reflexive awareness represents a common ground between the theory attached to Mahāmudrā, and pramāṇa, which allows for an epistemological explanation of the Mahāmudrā method of “taking direct perception as the path.” Through showing first, how his view of yogic perception differs from Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s,and secondly, how his view concerning reflexive awareness is connected to Mahāmudrā, I wish to show the unique characteristics of the Seventh Karma pa’s brand of soteriological epistemology.
The tathāgatagarbha doctrine of Mahāyāna Buddhism affirms the existence of some permanent, significant content of sentient beings that is of the same character as a Buddha. While this alone was an important innovation within Buddhist thought, some of its authors ventured further to deem this significant content an ātman: a ‘self’, in apparent contradiction to the central Buddhist teaching of the absence of self (anātman) in the constitution of all beings.
The aims of this thesis are two. Firstly, to examine usage of the term ātman in the Indian tathāgatagarbha sources which develop use of this expression. This entails a close reading of relevant sources (primarily Mahāyāna sūtra literature), and attention to how this term is used in the context of each. These sources present different perspectives on the tathāgatagarbha and its designation as a self; this study aims to examine significant differences between, and similarities across, these texts and their respective doctrines.
The second aim is to attempt an account of why authors of these texts ventured to designate the tathāgatagarbha with the term ātman, especially when some of our sources suggest that this innovation received some opposition, while others deem it in requirement of strong qualification, or to be simply inappropriate. It is not my objective to account for whether or not the tathāgatagarbha is or is not implicitly what we may deem ‘a self’ on the terms of Buddhist tradition; rather, I am concerned with the manner in which this expression itself was adopted, and – in light of clear difficulties raised by it – what may have motivated those authors responsible.
I argue not only that we can trace the development of this designation across the tathāgatagarbha literature, but also that those authors responsible for its earliest usage adopted an attitude towards non-Buddhist discourses on the self that requires special attention. This, I believe, had its roots in an account of the Buddha and his influence that advances our understanding of one tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhology, and its ambition to affirm its superiority over other Indian religious traditions. (Source Accessed October 29, 2019)The thesis focuses on the relations between mind and karma and the continuity of life in saṃsāra based upon a concept of mind, the ālayavijñāna, as presented in the texts of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu of the Yogācāra school of Indian Buddhism, A.D. 4-5th centuries. It has been the topic of many sectarian disputes as well as the springboard for several far-reaching doctrinal developments, so it is desirable to examine it within its early Indian Buddhist context.
The first section presents the multivalent viññāṇa of the Pali Canon and related concepts. It demonstrates that the major characteristics later predicated of the ālayavijñāna were present in an unsystematized but implicit form in the viññāṇa of the early discourses.
The next section describes the systematic psychological analysis developed by the Abhidharma and its consequent problematics. It argues that the incongruity of Abhidharmic analysis with the older unsystematized doctrines led to major theoretical problems concerning the key concepts of kleśa and karma, to which the Sautrāntika school offered the concept of seeds (bija).
The third section, based primarily upon the texts translated herein, depicts the origination and gradual development of the ālayavijñāna within the Yogācāra school from a somatic "life principle", to an explicitly unconscious mind, to its final bifurcation into an unconscious afflicted mind (kliṣṭa-manas) and a passive respository of karmic seeds, the latent loci of kleśa and karma, respectively.
The last section compares the ālayavijñāna systematically with Freud's and Jung's concepts of the unconscious, concluding that their respective philosophical milieus led both traditions to conceptions of unconscious mental processes as necessary compensations for strictly intentional epistemological models.
In the appendix the major texts presenting the ālayavijñāna, Chaps. V and VIII.37 of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, part of the Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi, and Ch. 1 of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, are translated and extensively annotated in order to contextualize the minutiae of this concept of mind with its canonical precursors and its Abhidharmic contemporaries. (Source: ProQuest)
This thesis explores the thought of one of Tibet's preeminent scholars, 'Jam mgon 'Ju Mi pham rnam rgyal (1846-1912), focusing on one of his most important texts, the Precious Lamp of Certainty. The critical philosophical traditions of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism inculcate a developmental or gradualist interpretation of the path towards enlightenment based on philosophical study and critical reasoning. The Precious Lamp of Certainty uses critical philosophical methods to establish the viability of the Great Perfection (rdzogs chen), a philosophical and meditative oriented towards subitism or sudden enlightenment.
Buddhism, as a religion arose in ancient India and developed in various parts of the world, aims at the unique goal that is providing welfare and happiness for human beings. The real happiness brought to mankind by Buddhism is not a satisfaction of self-requirement, but a spiritual benefit
coming from enlightenment of the absolute truth, emancipation of the ego of things and persons, and free from the hindrances of passion and ignorance. Buddhism that is mainly based on teachings of the Buddha delivered at different places on different occasions continues to develop and adapt to the new challenges in the form of thought, different cultures, religions, customs and tradition of the people wherever it went. However, all the Buddha’s teachings originate in the enlightenment of the Buddha.
All traditions of Buddhism accept that the Buddha attained enlightenment through stages of meditation that led to the Buddhahood endowed with transcendent wisdom and compassion. According to some Mahāyāna scriptures, the Buddhahood is nothing other than the Buddhanature which is the inherent essence within all beings. The doctrine of the Buddha-nature presented in several Mahāyāna scriptures of the so-called Tathāgatagarbha literature was formed in about the third century CE. There is no evidence that the doctrine of Buddha-nature formed a school in India like the Śūnyatā (Emptiness) of the Mādhyamika or the Vijñaptimātratā (Consciousness-only) of the Yogācāra School, but the Buddha-nature plays an important role in the religious life of Mahāyāna Buddhism in the East and Southeast Asian countries because it provides a faith of the permanence and immortality due to a declaration that all sentient beings possess the innate Buddha-nature and have a potentiality of becoming the Buddhas.
Although most of the followers of Mahāyāna Buddhism believe the doctrine of the Buddha-nature and constantly try their best endeavor to attain the goal of Buddhahood, there were a lot of opinions that criticize the doctrine of the Buddha-nature by asserting that it is not Buddhist because this idea of the Buddha-nature seems to be akin to the permanent Self
(ātman/brahman) presented in the Vedānta of Brahmanism. Conversely, according to some other scholars, the Buddha nature or Tathāgatagarbha referred in some Mahāyāna Sūtras does not represent a substantial self or ego; it is rather a positive language to express the thought of śūnyatā and to represent the potentiality of realizing the Buddhahood through Buddhist
practices. Modern scholars today fall into an unending discussion about the similarity or difference between the Buddha-nature and Brahman but no one compares the date of these doctrines. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is an attempt to clarify the Buddhist orthodoxy of the doctrine of the Buddha-nature through chronological comparison of the date of Buddha-nature with that of Brahman. Based on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and other scriptures, the work attempt to elucidate that the Buddhist thought of the Buddha-nature had existed prior the Vedāntic thought of Brahman. Indeed, the thesis shows that while the doctrine of the Buddha-nature had come into existence in the third century CE in the Tathāgatagarbha literature, the
Vedāntic doctrine of Brahman appeared for the first time in the sixth century CE. Consequently, although the Buddha-nature is closely akin to Brahman/ātman of the Vedānta, the doctrine of the Buddha-nature is originally a thought of Buddhism. For this reason, the writer chose the topic
entitled “Thought of Buddha-nature as Depicted in the LaṅkāvatāraSūtra” for the Ph.D. thesis.
Study on the Buddha-nature is a task which cannot be carried out without the important texts, teachings, practices and historical movements of Buddhism. This study is mainly based upon the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, a Buddhist text of the later period of the Tathāgatagarbha literature, in which
the thought of the Buddha-nature is depicted in relationship with most of the Mahāyāna concepts such as the Buddhatā, Tathāgatagarbha, Ālayavijñāna, Dharmakāya, Mind-only, etc. Especially, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra emphasizes the practice of self-realization and sudden enlightenment of the Buddha-nature. It is also said that the Sūtra was handed down by Bodhidharma to his heir disciple Hui-ke 慧可 as the proof of enlightenment in Chan (Zen) Buddhism.
This thesis is an attempt to investigate and criticize the philosophical and religious thought of the Buddha-nature as depicted in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra. In so doing, we have taken into consideration the following principle themes:
1. Evolution of the Buddha-nature Concept
2. The Buddha-nature in the Tathāgatagarbha Literature
3. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra and Hindu Philosophy
4. The Thought of Buddha-nature in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra
5. The Practice of Buddha-Nature in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra
6. Further Development of the Concept of Buddha-nature in
China
This dissertation seeks to locate the place of Taehyŏn 大賢(ca. 8th century CE), a Silla Korean Yogācāra monk, within the broader East Asian Buddhist tradition. My task is not confined solely to a narrow study of Taehyŏn’s thought and career, but is principally concerned with understanding the wider contours of the East Asian Yogācāra tradition itself and how these contours are reflected in Taehyŏn’s extant oeuvre. There are problems in determining Taehyŏn's doctrinal position within the traditional paradigms of East Asian Yogācāra tradition, that is, the bifurcations of Tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra; Old and New Yogācāra; the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles; and the Dharma Nature and Dharma Characteristics schools. Taehyŏn's extant works contain doctrines drawn from across these various divides, and his doctrinal positions therefore do not precisely fit any of these traditional paradigms. In order to address this issue, this dissertation examines how these bifurcations originated and evolved over time, across the geographical expanse of the East Asian Yogācāra tradition. The chapters of the dissertation discuss in largely chronological order the theoretical problems involved in these bifurcations within Yogācāra and proposes possible resolutions to these problems, by focusing on the works of such major Buddhist exegetes as Paramārtha (499-569), Ji 基 (632-682), Wŏnhyo 元曉 (617-686), Fazang 法藏(643-712), and, finally, Taehyŏn.
The problem is compounded even further by the existence of one influential school of Buddhism, the Zen (Ch'an) school, not a few of whose teachers have openly insisted on the harmfulness of reading the scriptures for those intent on achieving Enlightenment. For these teachers and their followers, the scriptures might just as well be burned as read.[3]
This is not simply a modern problem; it existed in sixth century China.[4] This was the period that saw the appearance of Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna (hereafter referred to as AFM). Once AFM appeared, it very quickly became popular. There seem to be two reasons for this: first, it satisfied the demand of people who wanted one volume that could comprehensively embrace all Buddhist doctrines; second, it is a non-sectarian text.[5] As a matter of fact, AFM was welcomed not only by non-sectarian people but by sectarian people as well. This occasioned another problem: members of some Buddhist sects who welcomed the appearance of AFM tried to use AFM to glorify their own sects. Many of the traditional commentators betrayed such tendencies, the most famous of these being Fa-tsang (643-712 A.D.), the third patriarch of the Hua-yen school in China.[6] One of his characteristic tactics was to anticipate the attack on his sectarian attitude by his opponents, the adherents of the Fa-hsiang school,[7] by using the doctrine of AFM to justify what was specifically the Hua-yen doctrine.
Fa-tsang's commentaries on AFM exerted a strong influence on his own and succeeding generations, the result being that AFM has sometimes been considered a Hua-yen text.[8] This is certainly unfortunate. But it underscores the hermeneutical problem of how to read a text. Ui Hakuju, one of the most noted of modern Japanese Buddhologists, responded to this problem in his Daijō kishin ron by cautiously suggesting that the text be read apart from its commentaries in order that its real message be grasped.[9] This suggestion is valid only insofar as it screens out those commentaries, such as Fa-tsang's, which already bring a point of view to the text and read the text as confirming that point of view. If, however, the commentary is truly exegetical in nature, then Ui's suggestion is invalid since it cuts off a prospective medium by which one's understanding of the text may be deepened. The commentaries on AFM written by the Korean monk Wǒnhyo (617-686 A.D.) are such a medium.[10]
Wǒnhyo is regarded as one of the three great commentators on AFM; the other two are Hui-yüan (523-592 A.D.) and Fa-tsang (643-712 A.D.).[11] Wǒnhyo's commentaries are very different from Fa-tsang's: Wǒnhyo is emphatic in characterizing AFM as a text embodying a principle by which all sectarian disputes may be harmonized. According to Wǒnhyo's understanding, if one interprets AFM as a sectarian teaching, one will betray the original intent of its author.[12] Unfortunately, in East Asia, including his home country of Korea, Wǒnhyo's commentaries
are simply famous; they are not well-studied.[13] They have generally been neglected in favor of Fa-tsang's.
Wǒnhyo is, undoubtedly, one of the foremost thinkers that Korea has produced; he wrote much else besides his commentaries on AFM. Yet, although he influenced both Chinese and Japanese thinkers,[14] he is almost unknown in the West. This thesis represents a preliminary attempt at remedying this situation. (Park, preface, 2–5)
Notes
- A number of books have been written about the Buddhist canon. For the Pali canon see Maurice Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1933, especially Vol. II, Section III, pp. 1-423. For the Sanskrit texts see Yamada Ryūjō, Bongo Butten no shobunken, Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1977. For the history of the formation of the original Buddhist texts in general, see Maeda Egaku's Genshi Bukkyō seiten no seiritsushi kenkyū, Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin, 1964. This
is the most comprehensive book of its kind.
The following books on the Chinese Buddhist canon are reliable: Prabodh Chandra Bagchi, Le Canon Bouddhique en Chine; les Traducteurs et les Traductions, Vols. 1 and 4, Paris: Sino-Indica Publications de l'université de Calcutta, 1927-1938; Paul Demiéville, "Sur les Éditions Imprimées du Canon Chinois," Bulletin de l'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient, Tome XXIV, Hanoi, 1924; Ono Gemmyō, "Bukkyō kyōten sōron," vol. 12 of Busshō kaisetsu daijiten, Tokyo: Daitō shuppansha, 1931-1936; Kenneth Ch'en, Buddhism in China {Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 365-386.
- For the schools of Buddhism in China, see Kenneth Ch'en, ibid., pp. 297-364.
- As Yanagida Seizan, one of the most energetic of contemporary Japanese Zen scholars, says in his discussion of the origin of Ch'an Buddhism in China, the early Ch'an masters such as Bodhidharma (arrived in China in 521 A.D.) and Hui-neng (638-713) did not neglect the importance of canonical instruction. The negligence shown towards the canon was a fairly late development in Ch'an Buddhism, after it had become popular and powerful. Extreme condemnation of scriptural studies began with Kung-an (Koan) Ch'an masters such as Ta-hui (1088-1163). See Yanagida Seizan, Zen shisō (Tokyo: Chuo koronsha, 1975), pp. 9-106 and Yanagida Seizan, Shoki Zenshū shisho no kenkyū (Kyoto: Hozokan, 1967), pp. 419-484.
- In the second chapter of AFM, "Reasons for Writing the Treatise," there are two pairs of questions and answers; the second one of them is a discussion of this problem. See T. 1666, vol. 32, p. 575c, lines 7-17. Wǒnhyo discusses this in his commentary also: see T. 1844, vol. 44, p. 205c, line 5 - p. 206a, line 16.
- It is undeniable that AFM became popular very quickly because of the many early records which mention AFM and comrnenbaries on it. However, I disagree with previous scholars such as Mochizuki Shinko and Ui Hakuju about the reasons for its popularity. They claimed that its popularity was due to the fame of Asvaghoa and Paramārtha. This may be true, but it can be only partially true. Many texts bear the names of Aśvaghoṣa and Paramārtha, but none have been as influential as AFM. Therefore, one may say that it was the doctrinal content of AFM which guaranteed its success; only this can explain its prominent historical role in sixth century Chinese Buddhism. Although Wǒnhyo did not doubt the authenticity of the text, he did not discuss the author and translator, whereas Hui-yuan and Fa-tsang did discuss them. See the preface to Mochizuki Shinko's Daijō kishin ron no kenkyū (hereafter referred to as DKK-M) (Tokyo: Kanao bunendo, 1922), pp. 1-5. See also the postface to Ui Hakuju's Daijō kishin ron (hereafter referred to as DK-U) (Tokyo: Iwanami bunko, 1936), pp. 131-132. See also T. 1843 vol. 44, p. 175c, line 11 - p. 176a, line 8 and T. 1846, vol. 44, p. 245c, line 25 - p. 246a, line 8.
- For the nature of Fa-tsang's commentaries, see DK-U, p. 132. An excellent overall survey of commentaries on AFM is given in Mochizuki Shinko's DKK-M, pp. 203-346. Mochizuki's survey includes detailed and annotated explanations of 176 commentaries on AFM. For the most recent
comprehensive survey see Hirakawa Akira's Daijō kishin ron (Tokyo: Daizō shuppan kabushiki kaisha, 1976), pp. 390-413.
- Murakami Senshō gives a good review of the criticism of AFM. See his Daijō kishin ron kōgi (Tokyo: Tōyō daigaku shuppanbu, 1912), pp. 19-31.
- See DK-U, pp. 138-139.
- See ibid., p. 140.
- Wǒnhyo wrote nine commentaries on AFM; only two are extant: T. 1844 and T. 1845 (see Part Two, "Introduction to Translation"). For the titles of the seven missing commentaries see the third section of Part One, "Wǒnhyo's Bibliography."
- Almost all the books and records about AFM mention the three great commentaries. The earliest attested one to do so is the preface by the Japanese monk Kakugen. It is included in T. 1844, vol. 44, p. 202a, lines 3-4. See my translation of Kakugen's preface in the Appendix.
- T. 1845, vol. 44, p. 226b, line 12.
- Many books and papers have been published about Wǒnhyo, but few of them are critical. There have been three translations of Wǒnhyo's commentaries into modern Korean, but none of the three is reliable. See Note 3 to the translation in Part Two.
- See Motoi Nobuo's paper, "Shiragi Gangyo no denki ni tsuite," Ōtani gakuhō XLI, No. 1 (1961), p. 37.
I begin with showing two contrary interpretations of Paramârtha's notion of jiexing 解性. The traditional interpretation glosses jiexing in terms of "original awakening" (benjue 本覺) in the Awakening of Faith and hence betrays its strong tie to that text. In contrast, a contrary interpretation of jiexing is preserved in a Dunhuang fragment Taishō No. 2805 (henceforth abbreviated as T2805).
The crucial part of this dissertation consists in demonstrating that T2805 and the Awakening of Faith represent two competing lineages of the interpreters of Paramârtha. The first clue is that modern scholars have voiced objection to the traditional attribution of the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha. In addition, I discovered that striking similarities exist between T2805 and Paramârtha's corpus with respect to terminology, style of phrasing, and doctrine. I further draw attention to the historical testimonies about two different doctrinal views held by Paramârtha's interpreters. Therefore, I argue that there were two lineages in the name of Paramârtha's disciples around 590 CE: the indirect lineage interpreted Paramârtha through the lens of the Awakening of Faith; and the direct lineage—represented by T2805—preserved Paramârtha's original teachings but died out prematurely. Later Chinese Buddhist tradition mistakenly regards the indirect lineage as Paramârtha's true heir and attributes the Awakening of Faith to Paramârtha.
This implies that Paramârtha may have agreed with Xuanzang 2T5c (600–664) much more than scholars used to assume. For example, Xuanzang's characterization of the notion of "aboriginal uncontaminated seeds" looks very similar to how Paramârtha depicts jiexing. It also implies that we should distinguish the strong sense of the notion of "tathāgatagarbha" in the Awakening of Faith from its weak sense. The fact that even Vasubandhu endorses the weak sense of "tathāgatagarbha" strongly challenges the received wisdom that Yogâcāra and Tathāgatagarbha were two distinct and antagonistic trends of thought in India.
