Rong ston shes bya kun rig
< People
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{PersonCall | {{PersonCall | ||
|StopPersonRedirects=No | |StopPersonRedirects=No | ||
− | |AssociateToTerm=Sakya | + | |AssociateToTerm=Sakya,Ngok Tradition |
|BnwPersonFeaturedContent====Commentary on the Three Reasons=== | |BnwPersonFeaturedContent====Commentary on the Three Reasons=== | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 16 March 2020
Library Items
On the topic of this person
Rongtön Sheja Kunrig’s Understanding of Buddha-Nature
Khenpo begins by stating that he will be mainly explaining the position of Rongton Sheja Kunrig, whose understanding of buddha-nature is further clarified by Gorampa Sonam Senge, although the two do not always completely concur. Explaining the Sanskrit words kulla and gotra, he highlights how without the Buddha element, or spiritual gene, it is not possible to wish for happiness and grow tired of suffering and seek the state of enlightenment. However, all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature, which Khenpo identifies as the union of emptiness and appearance.
The element, in the lower Buddhist philosophical schools, is considered as a conditioned seed for liberation. However, in the Mādhyamika school according to the Sakya tradition, buddha-nature is the union of the subtle intrinsic luminous nature of the consciousness and its ultimate nature, which is emptiness free from all elaborations. Khenpo lists the five positions on buddha-nature which Gorampa refuted, including the assertion that (1) buddha-nature is a nonimplicative negation, (2) there are two types of buddha-nature, one which is conditioned and the other which is unconditioned, (3) beings are without buddha-nature, (4) the two phases of buddha-nature are contradictory, and (5) buddha-nature is the truly existent intrinsic nature.
Khenpo further explains the difference between Rongton and Gorampa in explaining the verse presenting the three arguments for the presence of buddha-nature in all beings. This led to an intense discussion on whether one of the arguments is a sufficient reason on its own to prove the existence of buddha-nature in all beings or whether all three are required to make it a complete and valid argument.
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.
About this person
Commentary on the Three Reasons
According to Rongtön Shéja Günsi’s commentary on the Uttaratantra,[1] all sentient beings are said to possess the tathāgata heart because the dharmakāya of perfect buddhas radiates, because they possess the suchness that is undifferentiable from the aspect of the natural purity of the suchness of the dharmakāya, and because they have the disposition for the dharmakāya—the capacity of the basic element.
After briefly reporting Ngog Lotsāwa’s above explanation of I.28 and quoting I.27, Rongtön presents the manner in which Uttaratantra I.144–52 and RGVV match the dharmakāya, suchness, and the disposition with the nine examples for buddha nature. He says that the meaning of the tathāgata-dharmakāya’s radiating in all sentient beings is that the dharmakāya of realization pervades all sentient beings, quoting RGVV:
These three examples of a buddha image, honey, and a kernel explain that all sentient beings possess the heart of a tathāgata in the sense of the tathāgata-dharmakāya’s pervading the entire realm of sentient beings without exception.[2]
The citation of Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra IX.15 in RGVV is taken as being the reason for this. According to Rongtön, this means that the factor of natural purity—the cause for attaining the fundamental change of both the dharmakāya of realization and the dharmakāya of the teachings—pervades all sentient beings.
Philosophical positions of this person
Sentient beings are endowed with the naturally abiding gotra, but not the dharmakāya.
"Rongtön explains that what is called “the tathāgata heart” is suchness with stains (the basic element not liberated from the cocoon of the afflictions), which is the emptiness of mind with stains. By contrast, the dharmakāya of a tathāgata is what is liberated from this cocoon. The term “tathāgata heart” is used in terms of what is primary because this heart (in the sense of emptiness) is explained to exist at the time of the fruition too. This also refutes the assertion that the fully qualified tathāgata heart is solely the buddhahood that is endowed with twofold purity (natural purity and purity of adventitious stains) because it is explained repeatedly that the primary tathāgata heart is suchness with stains. Rongtön’s commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra says that the Mādhyamikas identify the disposition as the dharmadhātu specified by the six inner āyatanas." Brunnhölzl, K., When the Clouds Part, p. 76.
Other names
- ཤཱཀྱ་རྒྱལ་མཚན་ · other names (Tibetan)
- སྨྲ་བའི་སེངྒེ་ · other names (Tibetan)
- ཤེས་བྱ་ཀུན་གཟིགས་ · other names (Tibetan)
- རོང་ཊཱི་ཀ་པ་ · other names (Tibetan)
- ཤེས་རབ་འོད་ཟེར་ · other names (Tibetan)
- shAkya rgyal mtshan · other names (Wylie)
- smra ba'i seng+ge · other names (Wylie)
- shes bya kun gzigs · other names (Wylie)
- rong TI ka pa · other names (Wylie)
- shes rab 'od zer · other names (Wylie)
- Rongtön Shéja Günsi · other names
- Rongton Sheja Kunrig · other names
Affiliations & relations
- Sakya · religious affiliation
- Nalendra Monastery · primary professional affiliation
- Sangpu Neutok · other professional affiliation
- g.yag ston sangs rgyas dpal · teacher
- gnyag phu ba bsod nams bzang po · teacher
- shAkya mchog ldan · student
- 'gos lo tsA ba gzhon nu dpal · student
- go rams pa bsod nams seng ge · student
- Karmapa, 6th · student
- dkon mchog rgyal mtshan · student
- Rong ston shes bya kun gzigs 1997, 80–83.
- J70.